The evidence was sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction under Code § 18.2-371.1(A) of a Class 4 felony for criminal neglect of her ten-month-old son, resulting in his death, and her conviction pursuant to Code § 18.2-371.1(B) of a Class 6 felony for criminal neglect of her daughter, aged two years and ten months. Changes in the charges after a prior reversal of her convictions were not shown to be vindictive, and the trial court correctly refused to quash the additional indictment. The convictions are affirmed.

The Court of Appeals erred in finding that a hit-and-run defendant's conclusory proffer in support of a request for additional funds to secure trial testimony from a DNA expert showed the required ?particularized need.? The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and defendant?s conviction is reinstated.

The circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment in a breach of contract action where the terms of the agreement were plain and unambiguous, and did not require the defendant city to provide to the plaintiff law firm either a specific quantity of work or certain information that would facilitate the timely completion of such work. The judgment is affirmed.

Under applicable federal and state law relating to tenancy in an apartment subject to rent subsidization by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development, a tenant's family member, residing in leased property with the consent of the landlord, does not succeed to the tenant's rights under the lease upon the death of the tenant.

The circuit court erred in going forward with trial of a declaratory judgment proceeding because the relief requested was a determination of a disputed issue rather than an adjudication of the parties? rights, and should have been litigated in a breach of contract action. The judgment is reversed and the case is dismissed.

The trial court erred in striking the plaintiff's evidence with respect to counts charging assault and willful and wanton conduct in a case arising from a non-contact altercation between the drivers of two automobiles. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for trial on both theories.

The trial court did not err in concluding that a waiver of uninsured motorist insurance coverage higher than the statutory minimum by a single named insured on a business vehicle insurance policy is binding upon all other named insureds on the policy under Code § 38.2-2206. The judgment is affirmed.

In a personal injury action, the trial court did not err in granting the parties the right to file, pursuant to Code § 8.01-428(C), a notice of appeal from an earlier order entering judgment, and therefore defendant's notice of appeal was timely filed. Issues concerning plaintiff's contributory negligence, the trial court's questioning of a witness, availability of damages for deposition-related stress, exclusion of evidence, propriety of closing argument, and excessiveness of the verdict are addressed. The judgment is affirmed.

In a case concerning whether the pasturing of a horse within a residential subdivision either violated certain restrictive covenants and exceptions thereto set out in a recorded declaration, or constituted an enjoinable nuisance, the trial court erred in its interpretation of the legal effect of the covenants and exceptions. While it did not err in finding that a nuisance existed, the court erred in the scope of the remedy it prescribed on that basis. The case reversed in part and affirmed in part, and remanded to the trial court.

After a plaintiff who lacked standing to bring an action took a nonsuit, the circuit court ruled correctly in a second action ? by a proper plaintiff ? in allowing a nonsuit as a matter of right because the plaintiff without standing and the proper plaintiff in the second action were not suing in the same right. However, the court erred by entering that nonsuit order nunc pro tunc to a date 18 months earlier when the motion for nonsuit was filed. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded.

The trial court erred in ruling that a lot in a residential subdivision is no longer subject to a restrictive covenant prohibiting resubdivision without prior written consent of three-fourths of the current lot owners. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

In a case involving four limited partnerships, the chancellor correctly held that dissolution occurred when a managing partner's physical condition amounted to effective retirement, and that under express terms of the parties' agreements it was the remaining general partner's duty to sell or liquidate the assets of the partnerships. However, the chancellor erred in ruling that a successor partnership was required to make payments to limited partners in the original four partnerships based on a particular appraisal. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and final judgment is entered.